You are on page 1of 15

Organizational Effectiveness and Changing Job Design in the Information Technolo gy Community Copyright 1993 Board of Trustees, California

State University. Published in _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 17, Number 2, Summer 1994. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the copyright notification and its date appear, and source of publication is acknowledged as CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact Julia Rudy at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND CHANGING JOB DESIGN IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITY by Elsa Swan and Celeste Giunta ABSTRACT: Technology initiatives within the California State University have resulted in significant advances and improved technical capabilities and efficiency. Human resource and organizational systems are also needed to capitalize on and thrive in this rapidly changing work environment. The CSU has proposed a new job design approach to accommodate changing skill requirements in the information technology community. ======================================================================= The California State University (CSU) system is being challenged to meet increasing demands for educational and administrative services through the innovative use of technology and human resource systems. Even though funding levels for higher education have been cut in recent years, public/taxpayer expectations and the demands for quality education, access, service, and accountability have grown. Technology initiatives within the CSU have resulted in significant advances and improved technical capabilities and efficiency. Human resource and organizational systems are also needed to capitalize on and thrive in this rapidly changing work environment. In 1991, the CSU began a study to look at alternative work and job design approaches to meet these challenges. The study focused on the information technology community and how work processes and activities could be better organized to remove artificial barriers and improve organizational effectiveness, a process often associated with the term "reengineering." Secondly, the study focused on developing a job design approach that could adapt to changing skill requirements and that would promote the continuous acquisition of skills for knowledge-based employees in information technology. The goal of improved organizational effectiveness and an orientation towards reengineering and skills guided the development of the proposed job design approach. This article begins by identifying several trends that led to the study, then describes the overall project within the context of an organizational effectiveness equation. A new job design approach that was proposed as a result of the study is presented, including a new classification structure and competency dimensions and measures for

defining and evaluating positions. Finally, other supporting systems are described for an integrated human resources approach. The development phase of the project has been completed, and the CSU anticipates entering into negotiations with its employee representatives in the near future. A LOOK AT THE TRENDS Three trends have had a direct impact on the development of a strategic job design approach for the information technology community at the CSU: * diversification and convergence of technology; * increased demand for educational access and changes in instructional delivery methods; and * changing work place demands and priorities. The technology demands within higher education lead to a complex and dynamic computing environment. Academic and administrative computing strategies tend to be at cross-purposes in terms of defining systems requirements. This has resulted in widely diverse systems and technology within and across the CSU's twenty campuses. Increasingly, however, campus systems are becoming more integrated, as data are shared across multiple platforms on a network "highway" that is linked to external information sources. Networking and desktop computing have removed traditional boundaries for information access, research, and decisionsupport purposes. Data, voice, and video technologies continue to be combined in more interactive and user-friendly formats. In terms of educational trends, many institutions offer distance learning using various transmission media and are incorporating instructional technology into curriculum development. Students expect guaranteed access to technology and to research databases, and this access has become an issue of social responsibility.[1] Library and computing functions are becoming increasingly interdependent in "an infrastructure of scholarly communication" within higher education.[2] Workplace trends, as presented in _Sustaining Excellence in the 21st Century: A Vision and Strategies for College and University Administration_, well represent the outlook for the CSU. Two key issues are identified: (1) Economics. There is increasing pressure to constrain administrative costs within the "labor intensive cost structure" that exists in higher education. Reductions in staff are occurring at the same time as transaction volume and service expectations are growing. (2) Decentralization of responsibility. With fewer people and greater access to information, organizations are moving responsibility for decision-making downward to the point of service. Work organization is shifting away from job specialization and a task/procedure orientation, to more generalized job responsibilities focused on outcome and greater participation on cross-functional teams[3] Another central workplace trend is the "earning and learning" environment described by the U.S. Department of Labor in its Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) report. To quote Thomas P. Foley, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and

Industry: "We've changed from the idea of "one skill, one job" to the reality of a range of skills that have to apply to a number of different kinds of professions. More to the point, workers must possess a skill that they continually upgrade just to keep pace in the professions they choose."[4] The influx of new technology and applications has created a demand for continual learning and adaptation. Due to the CSU's relatively stable workforce, maintaining skills to keep pace with changing technology was identified as a critical goal. Knowledge requirements are expanding to encompass a greater breadth of technologies and subject expertise, as well as including process-oriented capabilities such as communication and negotiation skills. The implications of these technological, educational, and workplace trends point directly to the need to reengineer organizational structures, work design, and processes. Based on these trends and overall organizational goals, two key objectives were established for a new job design approach for the CSU: flexibility and skill development. Fundamentally, each campus needs the flexibility to achieve its goals by distributing work assignments in a way that optimizes its available skill mix and promotes individual skill development and initiative. OVERVIEW OF THE JOB DESIGN PROJECT The California State University system comprises twenty campuses ranging in size from 3,000 to 40,000 students. The system is the largest in the nation, with approximately 350,000 students and 40,000 faculty and staff. The CSU is a large, traditional organization, closely tied to the state bureaucracy, with overall direction and policy provided by its Board of Trustees. Within the CSU system, greater decentralization to the campus level and within each campus has been under way over the past several years, including the development of campus-specific technology strategic plans and delegation of budget authority and accountability. However, collective bargaining agreements are based on a uniform, systemwide classification system. The existing classification system, a civil service model, is outmoded and unable to adapt to different campus needs. Classification standards are task-oriented, with rigid specifications/skill requirements that encourage conformity and "standard operations." The classification system is part of a senioritybased performance and compensation system. This system no longer fits the environment and needs of the CSU. Thus, the CSU undertook a study to look at alternative work and job design approaches more suitable to meeting emerging trends and the diverse needs of its multicampus system. The scope of the information technology classification study was comprehensive. The study included information technology positions in the computing infrastructure, data and voice communications, and media (including instructional development and broadcasting), as well as department-based academic and administrative computing. The focus of the initial data collection was on broad functional areas, with the intent to look at different ways to combine or reconfigure work functions in information technology, rather than to simply update the existing classifications. Functions such as data entry and data control, which are being absorbed into administrative positions or are becoming

obsolete, were excluded from the study. Five major phases were defined at the beginning of the project: (1) data collection and research, (2) design, (3) development, (4) union negotiations, and (5) implementation. Because of the wide diversity of the campus technological environments, the data collection and research phase of the study involved gathering job content information at ten CSU campuses. Various focus groups were also conducted to define goals, prioritize issues, and build consensus. Based on these data, a conceptual design was developed and endorsed by campus management. During the development phase of the project, two working committees were formed. A subject expert team was established to troubleshoot the classification scope, job content, and skill requirements from a technical perspective. A personnel team developed classification and supporting processes, as well as communication strategies, and served as a feedback mechanism to unearth campus concerns. This team will continue providing guidance through the negotiation and implementation phases. At present, the project is in its fourth phase. The classification standards have been finalized, and the CSU is preparing for negotiations with the union on compensation and impact issues. The project is viewed favorably by employee relations, in that it reflects current technology and provides employees with greater opportunity for career development and job enrichment. ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS EQUATION Job and work redesign can be a powerful tool in the process of reengineering to achieve organizational effectiveness. A basic tenet of reengineering is the redesign of work activities and processes to realize the potential made possible by the introduction of new technology. For the purpose of this article, an "Organizational Effectiveness Equation," as developed by Mark Wallace, will serve as an outline to discuss the various components of the CSU study. This equation focuses on the human resource factors contributing to improved effectiveness in the reengineering process, as follows: Work Redesign + Competencies + Supporting Systems = Organizational Effectiveness. [5] In this equation, the work redesign component looks at how work activities are structured and organized. From a human resource perspective, this is often referred to as job design, and is the overall framework within which individual positions and work assignments are defined. The competencies component includes the knowledge, skills, abilities, and efforts that individuals apply to achieve work results. The supporting systems include the related human resource systems that reinforce and reward performance and support employee development. The end result, or sum total, of the equation is organizational effectiveness. The success measures of organizational effectiveness are (1) speed and improved cycle time, (2) operational flexibility, (3) the ability to respond to changing service and product demands effectively, (4) operational efficiency, and (5) continuous improvement in terms of applying technology to achieve results. Recognizing the critical role of human systems to overall organizational success, the CSU took on the challenge to reengineer its approach to classification, job design, and performance management. Work Redesign

The process of work redesign for this study involved two steps. The first was defining the information technology community and developing an effective approach for organizing and categorizing its work functions that accurately reflects the nature of the work. The second step required redefining the classification structure and its related systems. Following is a more detailed discussion of each of these steps. Defining the IT Community and its Work Functions In today's work environment, information technology affects everyone in some aspect of their work. Because the influence of technology is so pervasive, several hypothetical questions were posed at the initiation of the study: Can we define an "information technology community"? What are its boundaries? Who is the information technologist? With new technologies, such as universal networking, distributed processing, client/server technology, and "lights out" operations, there is no longer a physical location or boundary that defines the information technology community. Where a position reports or is located in the organization is no longer a relevant factor in determining membership in the information technology community. The focus shifts to the functional purpose of the actual work performed and the knowledge and skills required to perform this work. Findings in Reinvesting in the Information Job Family noted similar conclusions. This in-depth study of the comparability of library and computing positions found that "it is the set of skills, knowledge, experience, and competencies which is of central concern, not the department affiliation of the position ...."[6] With technology positions expanding beyond the traditional boundaries and all jobs taking advantage of technology applications, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between the sophisticated user of technology services and the information technologist. In deciding whether a position is appropriate for an IT classification, a definition emerged of the information technologist as the provider of information technology-based solutions and systems. For example, a budget analyst in an administrative department who develops information systems for budget analysis may or may not appropriately belong in the community depending on the primary functional purpose of the position. The pertinent questions become: Is the primary functional purpose of the position to provide budget analysis using information technology as a tool or to provide information technology-based solutions to the department for budget analysis? Which is the more critical skill set: functional knowledge of budget analysis or information systems? If the answer is the latter to both questions, the position likely belongs within the IT community. Focusing on criteria related to primary functions and skill sets allowed for a broader and more flexible approach to categorizing and grouping information technology work. The preliminary step in defining the community was to organize work functions based on common outcomes and skills. These aggregations are labeled core functions in the proposed classification structure. Core functions were then further combined into six broad job families, called "classifications" within the CSU, based on general market comparability, as well as commonality of work functions (see Table I for an overview of the six classifications). In addition, all six classifications are designed to cover the multiple information technology disciplines of data, voice, and video. This is to account for the ongoing convergence of these technologies as a result of

digitization, and to recognize the growing need for incumbents in all information technology positions to possess some knowledge and skills in each of these disciplines. ************************************************************************ Table I Six-Classification Series for IT Analyst/Programmer: Analysis and development of systems and technology-based solutions to meet user needs, including applications, databases, and related systems. Operating Systems Analyst: Responsible for operating systems, including network and database systems, and their interfaces to all other multi-disciplinary systems. Information Technology Consultant: Consultative support to students, staff, and faculty to enhance the use of technology systems and information access. Network Analyst: Engineering, analysis, and support of all networks carrying voice, data, video, or broadcast transmissions. Equipment/Systems Specialist: Responsible for installation, modification, and maintenance of equipment and systems, with a hardware and systems configuration focus. Operations Specialist: Responsible for the effective operation, monitoring, and control of multi-system information systems in data, voice, or video processing. ************************************************************************ Redefining the Classification Structure Traditional work and job design approaches focus on narrow task definition and job content analysis. In these traditional approaches, such factors as the authoritative scope or the financial resource control of a position are the primary factors for determining a position's value in relation to other jobs within the organization. In stable environments with relatively static jobs, these factors reflected organizational structures and were reliable determinants of job value. Today, however, these traditional factors fail to recognize such factors as individual competencies and contributions--so critical to organizational success in dynamic environments with increased service demands[7] The CSU's traditional classification system, which is based on narrow task and skill definitions, impedes the organization's ability to be flexible and responsive to changing business and service demands. To successfully respond to these demands, a new strategy--one that broadens the focus from job content to include the skills and contributions of the individual doing the work--is essential[8] The proposed job design approach and resulting classification structure provide such a shift and expanded emphasis, as well as much needed flexibility. Rather than defining discrete, incremental job levels, as in the existing system, the new structure provides for very broad job

definitions, which include the full continuum of skill levels. The focus in the new approach shifts from slotting into an incremental job level, based on narrow task and skill definitions, to defining positions from a broader and more fluid perspective, based on the actual work and skill requirements. The proposed classification structure can be viewed as a classification menu. Managers can select from this menu to customize positions to meet operational needs, rather than having positions dictated by or forced to fit into the classification structure. This menu comprises three key components: (1) the classification standards, (2) cross functions, and (3) project coordination/lead functions. Classification Standards -- The standard is the written documentation of the broad work functions within each of the six classifications shown in Table I. It contains the job content framework which includes the core functions and an outline of general technical skills pertinent to each core function. Core functions are descriptions of work activities without regard to value or skill level. To assist in the classification process, illustrative work examples are also provided for each core function. In developing individual positions, work assignments can be made from any or all core functions within that classification. Tables II-A and II-B show excerpts from a classification standard and a sample of a position description relating to that classification. ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ Table II-A: Classification Standard Excerpt CLASSIFICATION -- ANALYST/PROGRAMMER OVERVIEW: Positions in this classification are primarily responsible at varying levels for the analysis, design, modification, and installation of application programs, integrated systems, or software solutions including databases to meet user and organizational information needs at the systemwide, campuswide or individual unit level. ENTRY QUALIFICATIONS: To enter this classification, a basic foundation of knowledge and skills in applications programming, systems analysis and related programming support functions is a prerequisite. This foundation would normally be obtained through a bachelor's degree, preferably with an emphasis in computer science or business applications, or equivalent training and applied experience. CORE FUNCTIONS: The core functions for Analyst/Programmer are systems analysis and development, applications programming, and database analysis. These core functions represent major categories of work within the Analyst/Programmer classification. Typical activities and core skills cited for each core function are illustrative; individual position assignments may vary. CORE FUNCTION EXAMPLE: Database Analysis--Structure and implement databases to optimize data accuracy, access, and security. TYPICAL ACTIVITIES CORE SKILLS

Design database systems and programs which include access methods, access time, file structure, device allocation. validation checks, and statistical methods. Work with user community to understand data access and integration needs. Monitor database standards, usage and performance. Troubleshoot and resolve database and data problems. ETC

Knowledge of relational database design and file structure. Ability to perform database maintenance tasks, develop access routines, and maintain dictionary. Knowledge of distributed processing and client/server technologies. Ability to identify and resolve software and hardware interface problems Ability to effectively communicate with others and define systems to meet user needs.

************************************************************************ Table II-B: Sample Position Description/Work Plan Excerpt POSITION TITLE: Database Analyst CLASSIFICATION: Analyst/Programmer POSITION PURPOSE: Lead relational database applications and analysis activities in administrative computing. POSITION WORK PLAN: CORE FUNCTION/WORK ASSIGNMENT _____________________________ I. Database Analysis -- 70% of time Consult with users to determine database needs and develop design specifications. Direct implementation of the database. Analyze results of database monitoring. Optimize database access working with programmers. Troubleshoot and recommend solutions for database and data problems. Knowledge of relational database structures and systems, particularly VAX, Oracle. Knowledge of client/server and ability to create client/server access to Oracle DB from Mac and VAX using third-party software (HyperCard tools.) Ability to perform DB tuning at operating systems level. Ability to accurately access and meet user needs. POSITION SKILL REQUIREMENTS _______________________________

Plan for disaster recovery. ETC... Lead Assignments -- percent of time incorporated in other core functions Provide ongoing work direction to database and systems analysis staff by setting work priorities, assigning and evaluating work, and providing feedback. ETC... ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ Entry qualifications are identified for initial entry into each classification. Further progress is based on department need and work assignments requiring higher levels of skills and knowledge. The three broad skill levels defined within the classification structure for all six classifications are: foundation, career, and expert. These broad definitions replace incremental job levels and provide for a natural progression and development of skills within each classification, as well as accommodate the broader breadth of skills typically required in individual positions today. In the new structure, the foundation level defines a limited range of skills appropriate for entry level or support functions in the technology areas. The career level, however, encompasses a broad range of skills and is intended to accommodate the majority of employees through most of their careers. The expert level is for the top technical echelon, and it is anticipated that only a few positions will be defined at this level, hence only a small percentage of employees will achieve this level. While these three skill level definitions provide for substantial equity between positions and levels across campuses, they also allow for differences in campus structures, operations, and needs. In the new classification structure, an individual may be performing at different skill levels in various work assignments, without impacting the overall classification or skill level designation. The campus flexibilities with regard to skill level definitions are discussed more fully under the section related to competencies. Cross Functions -- This term refers to ongoing work assignments during a performance period which are from a core function from another classification within the defined IT community. Within specified parameters, cross functions provide the opportunity for cross-functional work assignments for training, breadth skill, and lateral career development without affecting the classification designation. Flexibility in designing positions and making work assignments is enhanced by providing this modular feature. Project Coordination/Lead Functions -- These work functions involve managing technical projects and/or providing ongoing work direction to other employees. They are also designed to be modular, meaning they can be added to or subtracted from an individual position as needed to meet Ability to identify work priorities and assign work to others. Ability to access the skills of others and provide training and assistance.

organizational requirements. A base level of these work functions is expected at the career and expert skill levels; however, specific criteria have been established to recognize performance of these functions at higher skill levels. The project coordination component provides a non-supervisory growth opportunity for technical experts, while the lead component provides a career path to supervisory positions. The excerpt from a sample position description in Table II-B provides an example of lead functions. Competencies and Skill Levels The second component of the organizational effectiveness equation, competencies, focuses on the knowledge and skills required in a position and applied by the individual incumbent. The proposed job design uses a skills analysis, rather than a task analysis, to determine the overall level of a position within a classification. In this approach, level of position is determined based on an analysis of the total set of skills and knowledge required by the work as defined in the position. The assessment or evaluation of an individual incumbent's applied skills against a position's skill requirements is a separate process from the position skills analysis and is part of the overall performance evaluation process, discussed below as part of supporting systems. The basis for the position skills analysis and individual assessment are the skill level guidelines. These guidelines provide campuses with an interpretive tool for analyzing and "leveling" skills against the three broad skill level definitions in the classification standard, allowing them to take into consideration their unique technology environment and position structure. The guidelines were developed to serve a dual purpose: as a tool for determining the level of a position within a classification to ensure internal campus equity, and as a tool for evaluating the skill application and performance of incumbents. Based on expanding skill requirements, the guidelines include three skill dimensions that were identified as critical to the IT family of knowledge workers: technical know-how, critical thinking skills, and interactive skills. While technical know-how is an implicit skill dimension in information technology positions, other "soft" or processoriented skills are becoming pivotal as the role of the information technologist shifts to the provider of a service that requires higher levels of interaction. The following is a brief description of each skill dimension: * Technical know-how encompasses the depth, scope, and integration of technical skills involved in applying technology within and outside of the body of knowledge or specialty applicable to the individual classification. * Critical thinking skills involve recognizing and solving problems, reasoning, making judgments, organizing resources and information, applying creative thinking, and knowing how to obtain and apply new knowledge. * Interactive skills involve listening to and communicating with others verbally or in writing and working with others individually, in a team and/or in a leadership capacity. For each of these skill dimensions, the guidelines describe the attributes at each of the three progressive skill levels--foundation,

career, and expert--parallel with the skill levels defined in the classification structure. The attributes described at each level are cumulative and denote a natural progression of skill development. These descriptions are meant to provide a composite of each skill level and not denote requirements for entering that level. Separate guidelines are recommended for the analyst/consultant classifications and the two specialist classifications because of the higher level of foundation qualifications and professional preparation required by the analyst/consultant classifications. To illustrate, Table III presents excerpts from the skill level guidelines for the analyst/consultant classifications through a matrix of skill levels and skill dimensions. In the skills analysis and assessment process, the skill requirements of a position and those applied by the position incumbent are evaluated against these defined attributes for level determination and performance assessment. For example, the position skill requirement of "knowledge of client/server and ability to create client/server access to Oracle DB from Mac and VAX using third-party software-HyperCard tools," as outlined in Table II-B, would fall under the career level of technical know-how. To perform these assignments, a functional, working knowledge of databases within the specialty of Analyst/Programmer would be necessary. [TABLE III NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION] Supporting Systems The third component of the organizational effectiveness equation, supporting systems, includes the related human resource systems that reinforce and reward performance and support employee development. These supporting systems include a performance system for work planning, performance tracking, and evaluation; development/career systems that define future organizational skill requirements and determine individual development plans; and a compensation system that determines salary ranges and salary increase opportunities. During the performance period, work progress and skill application is tracked to ensure sustained performance. Performance tracking is an interactive process initiated by the employee and reviewed by the manager. At the end of the performance period, the manager completes individual performance/skill assessments. The assessments include three components: what skills were applied, at what level of skill they were applied, and how well the work was accomplished. An individual's applied skills are measured against the skill level guidelines and the skill requirements of the position. Work accomplishments are measured against performance standards established at the beginning of the performance period. The outcome of the performance/skill assessment process is ongoing employee development plans, and classification and compensation decisions. This new approach to classification will require changes to the traditional roles of managers and employees in the CSU. The role of the employee will shift from "What are you going to do for me?" to "What can I learn and what responsibilities can I take on to increase my opportunity?"[9] The manager's role will be to balance employee development needs with operational and strategic objectives.

************************************************************************ SIDEBAR PROCESS OVERVIEW Systemwide Level The classification structure provides for substantial systemwide comparability based on common work functions and skill level criteria. The classification structure itself is least subject to change and, as a result, is designed to be open and flexible to accommodate diverse campus needs and ongoing technological advances. Campus Level Campus operations and strategies define the specific technological environment, projects, and priorities that drive work and skill requirements. This defined environment establishes a real-time context in which to assess the application of skills. The campus has the ability to update its skill level guidelines as needed, to reflect changing strategies and the introduction of new technology and skill requirements, without the need to redefine the classification structure. Department/Position Level Once the campus technology and objectives are defined, department plans can be developed and matched to available budgetary and human resources. Department plans will be translated into individual position descriptions/work plans which will define position-specific work assignments and skill requirements. This provides the opportunity to clearly communicate strategy and skill and performance requirements. The position description is the basis for classification assignment. ************************************************************************ LOOKING AHEAD As the CSU moves into the negotiation and implementation phases of the job design project, it will continue its participative approach to identifying and resolving problems. It is anticipated that negotiations will begin in June 1994. Changes to the current compensation system will be proposed during contract negotiations with employee representatives; a compensation proposal for salary ranges and methods of providing increases that relate to the performance/skill assessment will be discussed at that time. A cohesive, integrated human resource system is essential to successful implementation of the proposed classification structure. The systemwide office will be providing campuses with administrative guidelines and examples to use for performance management and skill assessment prior to implementation. In addition, training will be provided on various career paths and employee development alternatives. The implementation of the new system is expected to require a phased-in process, lasting from twelve to eighteen months, after which an assessment of the impact will be made and results reported. The key to organizational effectiveness is a flexible, motivated, and skilled workforce. A strategic approach to job design can play a vital role in the ability of an organization to achieve its goals. The job design approach proposed by the CSU study provides a unique opportunity to capitalize on the fundamental agent of work accomplishment--the individual. It is an open system, which allows the organization to match people to work requirements and tap into the creative and motivational

components of work. The proposed job design approach offers the CSU the ability to custom configure jobs, eliminate artificial barriers to growth and development, and promote and recognize individual skill development. As we approach the next century, these capabilities will be critical to an organization's success. For further reading: Higher Education and IT: Ehrmann, Stephen C. "Reaching Students, Reaching Resources: Using Technologies to Open the College." _Academic Computing_, April 1990, pp. 10-34. Penrod, James I., and Michael G. Dolence. "Concepts for Reengineering Higher Education." _CAUSE/EFFECT_, Summer 1991, pp. 10-17. Human Resources/Job Design: Franklin, Jerry. "For Technical Professionals: Pay for Skills and Pay for Performance." _Personnel_, May 1988, pp. 20-28. Jenkins, Douglas G., Jr., Gerald E. Ledford, Jr., Nina Gupta, and Harold D. Doty. _Skill-Based Pay: Practices, Payoffs, Pitfalls and Prescriptions_. Phoenix, Ariz.: American Compensation Association,1992. Kiechel, Walter III, "How Will We Work in the Year 2000," _Fortune Magazine_, May 1993, pp. 38-52. Lawler, Edward E. III. _Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategies and Pay Systems_. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. Ledford, Gerald E., Jr. "The Design of Skill-Based Pay Plans." Prepared for Milton Rock and Lance Berger (eds.), October 1989. Moravec, Milan, and Robert Tucker. "Job Descriptions for the 21st Century." _Personnel Journal_, June 1992, pp. 37-44. "Modernizing Federal Classification: An Opportunity for Excellence." A report by the National Academy of Public Administration to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Washington, D.C.: NAPA, 1991. Packer, Arnold. "Earning and Learning: Major Links to Better Living." _HR Magazine_, April 1993, pp. 51-54. Schneider, Benjamin, and Andrea Marcus Konz. "Strategic Job Analysis." _Human Resource Management_, Spring 1989, pp. 51-63. Siegel, Gilbert. _Public Employee Compensation and its Role in Public Sector Strategic Management_. New York: Quorum Books, 1992. ======================================================================== Footnotes: 1 Brian L. Hawkins, "Preparing for the Next Wave of Computing on Campus," _Change_, January/February 1991, pp. 24-31. 2 Peter Lyman, "The Library of the (Not So Distant) Future," _Change_,

January/February 1991, pp. 34-41. 3 Richard N. Katz and Richard P. West, _Sustaining Excellence in the 21st Century: A Vision and Strategies for College and University Administration_, CAUSE Professional Paper #8 (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1992). 4 The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, Skills and Tasks for Jobs: A SCANS Report for America 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1992). 5 Mark J. Wallace, Jr., "Rewards and Renewal: Competitive Advantage through Workforce Effectiveness," Paper presented at American Compensation Association National Conference, Anaheim, California, 1993. 6 Anne Woodsworth and Theresa Maylone, _Reinvesting in the Information Job Family: Context, Changes, New Jobs, and Models for Evaluation and Compensation_, CAUSE Professional Paper #11 (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1993). 7 Helen Murlis and David Fitt, "Job Evaluation in a Changing World," _Personnel Management_, May 1991, pp. 39-43. 8 Jay R. Schuster and Patricia K. Zingheim, _The New Pay: Linking Employee and Organizational Performance_ (New York: Lexington Books, 1992). 9 Norman A. Handshear and Sandra O'Neal, "Challenge and Opportunity: The New Pay and the New Pay Professional," _ACA Journal_, Spring/Summer 1993, pp. 74-79. ======================================================================== Elsa Swan is Compensation Manager for the California State University system, with broad responsibility for policy development, compensation analysis, and the classification program. Her previous employment at TRW and Unisys corporations provided her with a wide variety of experience in job evaluation/design and alternative incentive plans in a high-tech environment. She holds a master's degree in human resources and development from the Graduate School of Business and Economics at Chapman University. Celeste Giunta directs her own compensation and human resource consulting practice specializing in providing clients with expertise in organizational design and development, compensation, and performance management. Her career includes over a decade of corporate experience developing and directing compensation and related human resources programs in both the private and public sectors. Over the past five years, she has focused on her consulting practice and developing educational programs in compensation management. ======================================================================== Acknowledgments The authors extend special thanks to Dr. Thomas W. West, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Information Resources and Technology at the California State University system, for his vision and ongoing support; to Gene Dippel, Advisory Committee Chair; and to all the campuses and committee members for their valued contributions to the development of the

proposed classification system. This article is based on a paper copyrighted in 1993 by the Trustees of the California State University. Organizational Effectiveness and Changing Job Design in the Information Technolo gy Community